. .
. The teachings of Christian Science with respect to the
conscientious, skillful medical practitioner and surgeon may
be seen from the following excerpts from "Science and Health
with Key to the Scriptures," wherein Mrs. Eddy states (p.
151), "Great respect is due the motives and philanthropy of
the higher class of physicians;" also (p. 164), "It is just
to say that generally the cultured class of medical
practitioners are grand men and women, therefore they are
more scientific than are false claimants to Christian
Science." It is to be observed, then, that any unkind
attitude on the part of the students of Christian Science
towards the medical profession is a fault on their part, and
not a fault of the teaching of Christian Science; and it
should be understood that it is not "medicine" that is
opposed, but the growth and development of what has come to
be termed "state" or compulsory medicine. However, some of
the most unrelenting opposition to the political activities
of "organized medicine" comes from responsible and able
journals and members of the regular medical profession
itself, as will be seen from the following
references.

In
your leading editorial of the October issue, you mention the
Illinois Medical Association. The official journal of that
association is one of the most aggressive and consistent
foes of the spread of what is termed "medical paternalism"
that we know of. At the 1922 convention of the American
Medical Association, held in St. Louis, a resolution was
adopted declaring "opposition to all forms of 'state
medicine,' because of the ultimate harm that would come
thereby to the public weal through such form of medical
practice;" and Dr. Hubert Work stated that, "promiscuous
medical treatment is not a state function, and such
treatment should not be tolerated by the public or by
physicians."

From
the Journal of the American Medical Association we
glean such comments as: "Another error into which we have
fallen as a profession is the tendency to regard the medical
profession as a divinely authorized class, whose sacred and
distinctive function is the protection of the people either
with or without their consent." Also: "The responsibility of
protecting the public from disease and of securing better
health conditions belongs to the people. It is not a
function of the medical profession to maintain lobbies or to
endeavor to secure public health measures by political
methods."

The
late Prof. William James, M. D., of Harvard, voluntarily
appeared before the Massachusetts Legislature and opposed a
measure introduced for the purpose of restricting medical
practice in that state, saying that the state had no right
to interfere in medical matters, nor should it "dare to take
sides in medical controversies."

In
the May 15, 1924, issue of the Boston Medical and
Surgical Journal, we find the following: "State medicine
will spell the doom of inspiration in medical work and of
unlimited medical progress. In a land already burdened by
the limitations set by a bureaucratic government, where one
out of every forty has already been given the task of
policing the other thirty-nine, let us at least be spared
state medicine."

The
above quotation is a startling reecho of a pronouncement of
Dr. Benjamin Rush, famous Philadelphia medical
teacher-pracititioner, who wrote, in 1776, the following:
"The Constitution of this Republic should make provision for
medical freedom as well as for religious freedom. To
restrict the art of healing to one class of men and deny
equal privileges to others will constitute the Bastille of
medical science. All such laws are un-American and despotic.
They are fragments of monarchy, and have no place in a
republic." Christian Scientists have no quarrel with the
medical profession, and entertain most cordial feelings
towards it, and towards its endeavors to alleviate the
manifold woes of mankind; and they take no issue with its
programs to raise the standards of its own practice, but
they feel they have ample warrant, both in morals and in
law, to ask that their practice be not interfered with by
restrictive legislation, feeling that state medicine is no
less repugnant to the higher human ideal than is state
religion. . . .

Excerpt from
"Selected Articles"
Ralph W. Still, Committee on Publication for the State of
Texas, in theTexas State Journal of Medicine, Fort WorthChristian Science Sentinel, June 20,
1925